Dynamic Equivalence--Again!

[RipponRedeaux]

Let me recap.

1. DE/FE is not just a way to translate, it is a theory of translation that emphasizes man's understanding more than God's original message.

Your understanding is messed-up. Martin Luther, on the other hand, was right on the money. Again, I will remind you of Ernst R. Wendland's paper Martin Luther, the Father of Confessional, Functional-Equivalence Bible Translation.

Also, you have given the impression that modern FE Bible versions are done by a committee of one. No, they are composed of teams, so that no singular person injects his or her interpretation into the text.

The NLT is probably the most well-known FE Bible version in English these days. The translators of the NLT are not Nidaites. They don't hold to existentialism. and every other evil you wish to attach. You need to do yourself a favor and read the introduction of that translation. Also, note the Conservative scholars who contributed to it.

"The point here is that a nonliteral translation, precisely because it may give expression to the genius of the target language (in this case English), can do greater justice to that of the source language (Greek)." [p.43 of Are Translators Traitors by Moises Silva in the book The Challenge Of Bible Translation]

 

[John of Japan]

Your understanding is messed-up. Martin Luther, on the other hand, was right on the money. Again, I will remind you of Ernst R. Wendland's paper Martin Luther, the Father of Confessional, Functional-Equivalence Bible Translation.

You're not telling me a thing. I've sat and talked with Dr. Wendland.

Also, you have given the impression that modern FE Bible versions are done by a committee of one. No, they are composed of teams, so that no singular person injects his or her interpretation into the text.

The Good News Bible was originally translated by one, Robert Bratcher. Other than that, I have no idea why you think I have given this impression. I am fully aware that the NIV and other DE/FE translations are usually done by a team, and have never thought or said otherwise.

The NLT is probably the most well-known FE Bible version in English these days. The translators of the NLT are not Nidaites. They don't hold to existentialism. and every other evil you wish to attach. You need to do yourself a favor and read the introduction of that translation. Also, note the Conservative scholars who contributed to it.

I have never said that all who stand for DE/FE are existentialists, either on this thread or in my paper or anywhere else. This is a false charge.

 

[Revmitchell]

You're not telling me a thing. I've sat and talked with Dr. Wendland.


The Good News Bible was originally translated by one, Robert Bratcher. Other than that, I have no idea why you think I have given this impression. I am fully aware that the NIV and other DE/FE translations are usually done by a team, and have never thought or said otherwise.


I have never said that all who stand for DE/FE are existentialists, either on this thread or in my paper or anywhere else. This is a false charge.

I certainly didnt get that impression from your posts.

 

[John of Japan]

I certainly didnt get that impression from your posts.

Thank you!

 

[37818]

This so called dynamic equivalence translation too often corrupts the a correct meaning of the word of God. IMO.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

"The a."

Get specific. Identify a particular translation and explain why, in your understanding it corrupts the correct meaning of the Word of God.

Try to stick to versions of the last two decades please.

 

[37818]

"The a."

Get specific. Identify a particular translation and explain why, in your understanding it corrupts the correct meaning of the Word of God.

Try to stick to versions of the last two decades please.

"the a" is a typo. NIV Isaiah 66:24, ". . . the worms that eat them will not die, . . ." Mark 9:48, ". . . the worms that eat them do not die, . . ."
Neither the Hebrew or Greek says that.
The word "worm" is singular, not in the plural. And says nothing about eating. And most Christians do not know why, even when having the correct translation.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

"the a" is a typo. NIV Isaiah 66:24, ". . . the worms that eat them will not die, . . ." Mark 9:48, ". . . the worms that eat them do not die, . . ."
Neither the Hebrew or Greek says that.
The word "worm" is singular, not in the plural. And says nothing about eating. And most Christians do not know why, even when having the correct translation.

The 2005 edition of the TNIV had "their worm" in both passages and no references to eating.

 

[37818]

The 2005 edition of the TNIV had "their worm" in both passages and no references to eating.

The 2011 edition was cited.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

You're not telling me a thing. I've sat and talked with Dr. Wendland.

But your views differ from his regarding Dynamic or Functional Equivalency.


I have never said that all who stand for DE/FE are existentialists, either on this thread or in my paper or anywhere else. This is a false charge.

You have said that DE/FE is based philosophically on existentialism --a human philosophy. You also said that it is also based on neo-orthodoxy --that the Bible is not the Word of God, but becomes so when a person experiences it.

Therefore, if a Bible version which is considered primarily a FE such as the NLT all those principles you attach to FE must be instilled in it. That is, if you wish to be logically consistent. However, you are not being consistent. All those negative features you think are within FE translations -- you somehow back away from when it comes to a DE translation. You can't have it both ways.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

I want to deal with JJ's #38 post regarding Matthew 8. He seeks to prove what he thinks are the inadequacies of the TNIV.

This will be done in piecemeal fashion.

JJ complains that the TNIV has no conjunctions at the start of all the verses in the chapter except for possibly six passages. But when comparing that chapter to the CSB the latter also does not have conjunctions in those places.

In verse 2 the CSB has "Right away." Some versions have "Suddenly" or "Then." A few have "and." Some have "And behold" such as the KJV, NKJV, ESV, LEB and Web.

I did not get his point regarding verse 6.

In verse 11 the TNIV has "take their places at the feast." This irks JJ. He prefers "sit" or "recline." And he objects to the TNIV rendering of "take their places at the feast." The CSB and NET have "share the banquet." The NLT and WEB have "sit down." The LEB has "be seated at the banquet." I don't see what his issue is.

In verse 12 the TNIV has "the subjects of the kingdom." The EXB also has "subjects of the kingdom" as one of its options along with "heirs" and "sons." The KJV, WEB and CEB have "children of the kingdom."

Verse 16 in the NIV has "he drove out the spirits with a word." That's the same rendering as the CSB and the NET. Contrary to JJ's claims, it was immediate. You can easily see this "with a word." The Phillips and the LEB have "expelled with a word." That is instantaneous.

To be continued.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Verse 20 of Mathew eight. The TIV has "Jesus replied" as the CEB and NLT have it. Some other versions have "answered him" or "told him." I can see the point "He [Jesus] said" is more powerful. Jesus was not just responding to the teacher of the law, but telling him.

Verse 21 is problematic in the TNIV with the wording "Another disciple." The TNIV is the only version on BibleGateway that has that rendering. It indeed should be "Another of his disciples."

Verse 24 is rendered as "furious storm" in the TNIV. The CSB,ISV and Mounce have "violent storm." The NASB, WEB and NLT have "fierce storm. I see no problem with the TNIV rendering.

In verse 25 the TNIV has "We're going to drown!" just as the CEB and NLT have it. Most versions have "We're going to die" or "We are perishing."

In verse 26 the TNIV has "it was completely calm." The NCV renders it the same way. The NASB has "perfectly calm." Most versions have "great calm" and a number of others, such as the NRSV have "great calm."

In verse 29 the TNIV has "Before the appointed time." Mounce, NABRE, NCB and NLT render it in the same manner.

In verse 31 the TNIV has "If you drive us out" the CSB, EHV, ISV, Mounce, NABRE and NET render it the same way.

So where does that leave us? JJ did not have a convincing argument on the subject of conjunctions for this chapter.
I will give him a total of three points for verses 20,21 and 25. He gets credit for that. Therefore he gets a grand total of 3 out of 12 which is 25%. He did not establish his thesis.

 

[37818]

The problem is not actually believing what the word of God literally says when it is to be so understood as such.

 

[John of Japan]

But your views differ from his regarding Dynamic or Functional Equivalency.

Unlike some on the BB, scholars can differ and still converse.

You have said that DE/FE is based philosophically on existentialism --a human philosophy. You also said that it is also based on neo-orthodoxy --that the Bible is not the Word of God, but becomes so when a person experiences it.

Actually, I did not simply assert this. I gave quotes from Nida himself and Stine his chronicler to prove it.

Therefore, if a Bible version which is considered primarily a FE such as the NLT all those principles you attach to FE must be instilled in it. That is, if you wish to be logically consistent. However, you are not being consistent. All those negative features you think are within FE translations -- you somehow back away from when it comes to a DE translation. You can't have it both ways.

This is puzzling. I really haven't posted on DE/FE for a long, long time, so you really don't know where I am now. Of course, knowing you, you'll go back ten years and find some quotes. Enjoy yourself.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

On a previous thread, a poster attacked me for being in favor of the dynamic equivalence (DE) theory of translation. This was in spite of me not ever saying that, and in fact having written against it here on the BB. So I thought that it must be time for me to rail against it again, so that the johnnie-come-latelies get the message--I strongly oppose it!!!

Well, if you consider a month ago a long, long time --the above is from the OP of this thread.

 

[John of Japan]

Well, if you consider a month ago a long, long time --the above is from the OP of this thread.

Wow. Nitpick much?

 

[RipponRedeaux]

There is nothing nitpicky about it. In your opening post of October 25, 2022 you stated that it was time to rail against the DE theory of translation again.
Yet you told us on Saturday November 26, 2022 that you hadn't posted on DE for a long, long time. You went on to claim that no one knows where you currently stand on the issue.

 

[John of Japan]

There is nothing nitpicky about it. In your opening post of October 25, 2022 you stated that it was time to rail against the DE theory of translation again.
Yet you told us on Saturday November 26, 2022 that you hadn't posted on DE for a long, long time. You went on to claim that no one knows where you currently stand on the issue.

Nope, its all nitpicky.

 

[John of Japan]

While Rippon nitpicks, some may wonder what is wrong with having existentialism as a basis for a translation theory. So, I'll post the notes for a lecture I give on the subject in Intro to Philosophy. Here you go. Enjoy! (This will take a few posts to do because of the footnotes.)

Existentialism

INTRODUCTION: “If one were to summarize existentialism in one sentence, it would be that existentialism is a philosophy that emphasizes the priority of existence over essence. That is to say, the question ‘Is it?’ (‘Does it exist?’) is more important than ‘What is it?’”[1]

It is very important for modern servants of Christ to know about this philosophy. Though no true fundamentalist endorses it in any way, shape or form, it has influenced secular, Western culture in a huge way with its relativism, and evangelical Christianity in surprising ways. Many are deceived by it, seeking human freedom and meaning in the guise of Americanism, without knowing the origin of the modern version of these ideas.

I. The Nature of Existentialism
A. This is the first major Western philosophy to abandon the traditional questions, such as the existence of God and the purpose of mankind.
B. In some ways it was a reaction against German rationalism. However, it replaced rationalism with an even more subtle error, using normal words with new meanings.
C. For a Christian, its main fault is that it abandons absolutes, following Friedrich Nietzsche and others.
D. The main idea in existentialism is, as its name indicates, human existence. Therefore, what is important is not truth, but living “authentically” in the moment. “Authenticity is a feature of the existentialist individual. In fact, existential individuality and authenticity seem to imply one another…. To be truly authentic is to have realized one’s individuality and vice versa.”[2]

[1] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 45.
[2] Thomas Flynn, Existentialism (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 2006), 74.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Nope, its all nitpicky.

You are a denier of plain facts. You contradict yourself.